Atla wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 5:50 am
And that's why your comment was self-refuting. Read my comment again, kindignat. We can't both have useful illusions on the exact same noumenal object, then it's hardly an illusion anymore.
Why not?
When parents knowing Santa Claus is an illusion [fictional] and yet tell their toddler Santa is a real person [noumenal] flying from the North Pole in a reindeer chariot to deliver Christmas gifts, that is a useful illusion.
When you think there is a mind-independent noumenal wooden-rolling-pin [illusory] against the real emerged and realized empirical wooden-rolling-pin you are holding, that is a useful illusion to soothe your cognitive dissonance, e.g. "it is absurd for an appearance without any thing that appear."
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 5:50 am
And that's why your comment was self-refuting. Read my comment again, kindignat. We can't both have useful illusions on the exact same noumenal object, then it's hardly an illusion anymore.
Why not?
When parents knowing Santa Claus is an illusion [fictional] and yet tell their toddler Santa is a real person [noumenal] flying from the North Pole in a reindeer chariot to deliver Christmas gifts, that is a useful illusion.
When you think there is a mind-independent noumenal wooden-rolling-pin [illusory] against the real emerged and realized empirical wooden-rolling-pin you are holding, that is a useful illusion to soothe your cognitive dissonance, e.g. "it is absurd for an appearance without any thing that appear."
Read my comment again, kindignat. You changed the topic, in your new examples we aren't making a connection between two appearances.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 5:50 am
And that's why your comment was self-refuting. Read my comment again, kindignat. We can't both have useful illusions on the exact same noumenal object, then it's hardly an illusion anymore.
Why not?
When parents knowing Santa Claus is an illusion [fictional] and yet tell their toddler Santa is a real person [noumenal] flying from the North Pole in a reindeer chariot to deliver Christmas gifts, that is a useful illusion.
When you think there is a mind-independent noumenal wooden-rolling-pin [illusory] against the real emerged and realized empirical wooden-rolling-pin you are holding, that is a useful illusion to soothe your cognitive dissonance, e.g. "it is absurd for an appearance without any thing that appear."
Read my comment again, kindignat. You changed the topic, in your new examples we aren't making a connection between two appearances.
If I [average intelligence] adopting a certain perspective cannot understand your point 2x, it is your bad communication.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 6:58 am
Why not?
When parents knowing Santa Claus is an illusion [fictional] and yet tell their toddler Santa is a real person [noumenal] flying from the North Pole in a reindeer chariot to deliver Christmas gifts, that is a useful illusion.
When you think there is a mind-independent noumenal wooden-rolling-pin [illusory] against the real emerged and realized empirical wooden-rolling-pin you are holding, that is a useful illusion to soothe your cognitive dissonance, e.g. "it is absurd for an appearance without any thing that appear."
Read my comment again, kindignat. You changed the topic, in your new examples we aren't making a connection between two appearances.
If I [average intelligence] adopting a certain perspective cannot understand your point 2x, it is your bad communication.
No it's not. Someone with average intelligence shouldn't read Kant as he will never be smart enough to understand him. You can play philosophy but you can never be good at it. It's just how it is, it's not your fault.
Or the alternative would be that you admit that you're 100% a solipsist.